Even trying to speak to you now, it's so loud around us so maybe that's that's the point so that they can deliver their message as loudly as possible.

And do you think they'll be heard?

I mean, completely detached almost to what is happening over there, Cop 26 was built as the last best chance to save the planet.

Many of the world's most powerful leaders, climate scientists and activists descended on Glasgow with an aim to do just that.

But how successful have they been and is what's happened inside this conference center really going to solve our climate emergency.

The negotiations more formal process behind closed doors is difficult to understand what's happening in the conference.

Sam MEREDITH is a correspondent for CNBC covering climate, health and international politics.

He's been in Glasgow for the duration of cop 26 writing about the stories both inside and outside the conference center.

How is cop 26 gone.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I think it's important to say that in the run up to the summit, expectations were very low and they're actually made lower by world leaders and diplomats.

Part of the problem for cop 26 I suppose is that there's gonna be no headline agreement that comes out of this.

This cop is about determining whether the paris agreement from six years ago, it's fit for purpose.

The 2015 paris climate agreement committed countries to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels with an aim for 1.5 degrees, but climate scientists say that 1.5 degrees Celsius needs to be more than just an aim.

They say if global average temperatures rise by more than that, the earth will likely experience more extreme climate change effects such as an increased risk of drought and flooding.

I don't get a sense that a lot of people are talking about 1.5.

Why is that?

Yeah.

Well it depends which people you're referring to I suppose I think of its low-income leaders.

We saw the Barbados prime minister for example, me a monthly delivering a very powerful speech, 1.5 is what we need to survive 2°. Yes S.

G.

is a death sentence.

Global warming already stands at 1.1°C and is rising.

And despite countries targets for decreasing greenhouse-gas emissions, the world is still on track for a 2.4 degree warming by the end of the century.

So what came out of the cop 26 negotiations, The Glasgow Climate Pact, which was agreed on by 197 members, is the first ever climate deal to explicitly planned to reduce coal the worst fossil fuel for greenhouse gasses.

It also resolved to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to that all important 1.5 degrees Celsius.

While each country's climate commitments are not legally binding negotiations around specific words carried on well past the deadline in the end there was disappointment that countries agreed that instead of phasing out coal, they would face down following opposition from china and India, I apologize for the way this process has unfolded and I'm deeply sorry the start of the conference was a lot more upbeat.

Following a flurry of wide reaching prearranged pledges that created a buzz to kick off proceedings.

Significant ones include pledges by the world's biggest co two emitters the U.

S.

And china to achieve the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature goal.

The U.

S.

Also announced a partnership with the EU and like minded parties to cut global methane emissions from 2020 levels by 30% Before the end of the decade.

More than 20 countries made new commitments to phase out coal power and India pledged to cut its emissions to net zero by 2070.

India is an interesting example because it is not historically as responsible as others for the climate crisis.

So there is less onus on it as such to commit to more stringent goals that you might expect other rich countries to do so it Can and possibly should do more.

But it's a significant development for them to commit to 2017 India argued that other developing countries still have to deal with their development agendas and poverty eradication before phasing out coal and fossil fuels in particular.

It led calls for richer nations to provide financial aid for emerging markets to deal with climate change.

I think a key test will be finance this was imperative to rebuilding trust between the countries in the Global North and those in the global South.

So In 2009 in Copenhagen it got 15, we had rich countries pledging to deliver $100 billion a year by 2020 and of course we're still not there with rich countries delivering that $100 billion.

That's a big problem for repairing trust were not expected for that to be delivered until 2023.

It was also a largely symbolic figure anyway because the real cost of what it will take to transition to net zero will be trillions.

While a number of richer countries promised more funds for climate finance the U.

S.

And the EU resisted calls from developing countries to create a funded facility for climate disaster victims over fears of incurring billions in damages.

The pledges made so far also fall short of capping temperature rises below 1.5 degrees Celsius, based on the real world action of current policies, temperatures will rise by 2.7 degrees If nationally determined contribution targets for 2030 are fully implemented then temperatures are estimated to rise by 2.4 degrees.

If alongside that all long term targets were fulfilled then it would drop to around 2.1 degrees and even in the unlikely event there is a full implementation of every target ever announced.

The best case scenario is a temperature rise of 1.8 degrees Celsius, delegates did however, agreed to set tougher climate pledges before the cop 27 meeting in Egypt next year.

While critics accused the member states of kicking the climate can down the road, others say that countries would not have had to resubmit new climate commitments until 2025 under the paris agreement.

So any agreement to ratchet up action within 12 months would be a big win.

What's been the opinion of business leaders here at cop 26 on what's been agreed?

I'm sure they've been watching quite closely.

Yeah, of course.

Well on finance day we saw the former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney who's also a U.

N.

Special envoy on climate announced G fans so many acronyms at cop this is yet another one is the Glasgow financial alliance for net zero just about got it.

Thanks.

Uh So this initiative he says mobilized $130 trillion from financial institutions and asset managers to net zero commitments.

That sounds like a lot of money.

It's around 40% of the world's capital which again seems like a big deal critics of this though, suggested there are too many loopholes for this to be an effective solution to meet the demands of the climate emergency.

However, climate activists outside the conference center are not convinced that cop 26 or more summits for that matter will bear any real fruits rather than voluntary contributions.

They are calling for regulation and enforcement and accused businesses of greenwashing.

This is no longer a climate conference.

This is now a global north green wash festival leading youth climate activist Greta thunberg wasn't invited to cop 26 many critics of the conference argued there haven't been enough young people to put pressure on the decision makers.

I really expected it to be many more young people than particularly when all the protests.

Climate protests tend to be led by young people.

Exactly.

I think that's been really noticeable, particularly in the main hub of the event where lots of the world leaders are based.

There were a couple particularly moving speeches that there was one from an environmental advocate from Samoa and it was Brianna through in this is our warrior cry to the world, we are not drowning, we are fighting.

We also heard from an indigenous Amazonian activist.

Her name is Shai Suri, my father, the great chief.

Our misery taught me that we must listen to the stars, the wind, the animals and the trees.

I spoke to a spokesperson for the 26th coalition which is a civil society group that represents communities from the Global south and they've described this event as one of the most exclusionary that they've known.

They feel that they've been locked out of the talks and even when it comes to accessing these talks remotely there have been problems online as well which I know that the U.

N.

Has apologized for.

So it's been a problem.

What would a really successful cop 26 have looked like?

It's really difficult to define what a successful summit would look like.

But the pledges that we've seen particularly at the start of the summit, gave some reason for optimism.

Some of the experts that I've spoken to have talked about their expectations being surpassed.

You have to think if you're trying to be optimistic about this that there is hope here, but we can't know yet and we need to look at it through that skeptical lens because there have been past commitments which have not lived up to their billing.

So it's very hard to think that all the countries that ratified the Paris agreement six years ago can leave Glasgow knowing that they've done all they could to keep 1.5 alive.